Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

Quote of the Week:“The purpose of the ‘social cost of carbon’ (SCC) estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions.” From: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis, Under Executive Order 12866, February 2010

Last Friday, the White House transmitted to Congress the 2011 Economic Report of the President (ERP) prepared by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. For purposes of science based environmental policy, the most crucial chapter is Chapter 6, “Transitioning To A Clean Energy Future.” Several specific issues will be discussed in the upcoming TWTW, however, this week’s discussion will be limited to two general concepts in the ERP: first, the concept of Social Cost of Carbon, suggested, but not fully calculated in the ERP; and, second, the calculated social cost of American’s dependence on foreign oil which demonstrates how the concept of Social Cost of Carbon can be easily used by bureaucrats to the detriment of the American public.

The concept of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) can be found in the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis, Under Executive Order 12866, February 2010 from which the “Quote of the Week” is taken. Twelve government agencies are listed as participating in the Interagency Working Group including the expected – EPA, Department of Energy, Office of Energy and Climate Change. Other agencies include Council of Economic Advisers, Office of Management and Budget, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Treasury.

As suggested in the above quote, the concept of SCC is intentionally vague and lacks scientific precision. It is a bureaucrat’s dream. Any suggested harm from the use of carbon can be included no matter how improbable. Of course, the current objective is controlling all carbon-based fuels. But, SCC can be used for other purposes as well.

Humans are carbon based life forms, all life on the planet is carbon based. The use of vague concepts such as Social Cost of Carbon suggests life itself comes with a social cost.

In recent years, the Federal government demonstrated how laws with vague concepts can be used to broaden government control of the citizenry. When the Clean Air Act was passed, it was not envisioned by many of its principal sponsors that it would be include control carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide, a non-toxic trace gas essential to life, is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

If given leeway, EPA, and others, will use the vague concept of Social Cost of Carbon to greatly expand governmental powers. The ERP states the estimated value of the benefits from carbon management range from $5 per ton of to $67 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, there is no mention of the actual benefits of carbon dioxide enhancement to agriculture and the environment, apparently something the Department of Agriculture does not recognize.

The ERP also gives also gives a demonstration, but does not fully discuss how government agencies can manipulate the concept of Social Costs of Carbon (SCC). The ERP contains a full separate page titled the “Energy Security Benefits of Reduced Oil Consumption,” to include the costs of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The ERP omits any discussion that the ‘Security Benefits’ would be achieved by expanding domestic exploration and development of the extensive oil resources within the US and its offshore boundaries, which would eliminate any of the delineated ‘Security Benefits’ in the ERP. Further, that section of the ERP concludes with the unrelated comment: “By comparison, one U.S. government estimate [unidentified] of the global social cost of the CO2 emissions associated with one barrel of oil is $9.52 in 2010 going up to $20 in 2050.” (p. 126) Global social costs are lumped into US security cost. (Please see documents referenced under “EPA on the March …”)
*******************************************
On March 1, the EPA posted the final version of a new report: “The main purpose of this report is to document the costs and benefits of the 1990 CAAA [Clean Air Act Amendments] provisions incremental to those costs and benefits achieved from implementing the original 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1977 amendments.”

“The results of our analysis, summarized in the table below, make it abundantly clear that the benefits of the CAAA exceed its costs by a wide margin, making the CAAA a very good investment for the nation. [Emphasis in the original] We estimate that the annual dollar value of benefits of air quality improvements will be very large, and will grow over time as emissions control programs take their full effect, reaching a level of approximately $2.0 trillion in 2020.” (First page of Abstract, no page number)

“A peer-reviewed report prepared by the EPA estimates that for the year 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 yielded net benefits of $1.2 trillion-everything from lives saved to healthier kids to a more productive workforce (EPA 2010).” [The ERP p. 127] The bottom line is that the EPA considers the intensification of Clean Air Act regulations since 1990 will be worth $2.0 TRILLION per year in 2020 and is worth $1.2 TRILLION in 2010, alone.

In its discussion and presentation of the CAAA, EPA avoids any specific mention of carbon dioxide, except for its effects on galvanized steel. Virtually the entire impact study is taken up by discussion of airborne compounds of sulfur and nitrogen, etc. If the value of the 1990 amendments is $1.2 Trillion, one is compelled to inquire how much EPA values the Clean Acts of 1970 and 1977? How much does EPA value the Clean Water Act and similar regulations? (Please see documents referenced under “EPA on the March …”)
*******************************************Number of the Week: $1.2 Trillion. The EPA values the Clean Air Act Amendments since 1990 at $1.2 Trillion in 2010 alone, or more than 8% of the US Gross Domestic Product in 2010, estimated to be $14.7 Trillion. EPA valuations of regulations it enforces, or desires to enforce, are highly questionable.
*******************************************
The head of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon went to Hollywood to beseech the entertainment industry to produce more movies about global warming – as if Al Gore’s Academy Award was not too much. During World War II the US War Department, and its propaganda arms, asked Hollywood, and others, to assist by making patriotic war movies, special features for the troops and civilians, and design propaganda posters. The effort was successful. Many countries in World War II, including those on opposite sides, made similar requests of their artists and were also successful – to a point.

After spending vast sums hiring some of the finest advertising agencies in the world, the IPCC, and the environmental industry, now must appeal to Hollywood. Except in the minds of the IPCC and its supporters, we are not in a World War, and the public is becoming increasingly skeptical of those who believe we are. (Please see articles under “Defenders of the Orthodoxy.”)
*******************************************
The announcement by the prime minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, that Australia will implement a carbon tax and subsequently move to a cap-and-trade program has created an outrage among many citizens. (Please see Articles # 1 and # 2 and articles under “Cap and Trade.”)
*******************************************
To extend government operations, this week, the US Federal government agreed to a two week extension of the current budget resolution with some budget cuts. Another ‘show-down’ will arrive next week.
*******************************************
Corrections and Amplifications: Last week’s TWTW contained a quote from Malcolm Ross, “Give me a faster computer and I will give you the wrong result sooner,” in response to comments by the Met Office claiming it was unable to predict the cold winter because its computers were too slow. Last week’s TWTW failed to identify the source of the original comments by the Met Office. Those comments came from an interview with Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the Met Office, as published in Nature magazine, on December 30, 2010, http://www.nature.com. A fuller discussion can be found in the January 8, 2011 TWTW.

NEWS YOU CAN USE:Climategate ContinuedThe WWF Vice President & the New IPCC Report
By Donna Laframboise, No Frakking Consensus, Mar 4, 2011 [HT ICECAP]http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/…[SEPP Comment: Another example of the interrelationships between the IPCC and the Environmental Industry.]

Challenging the OrthodoxyIs The NSF Funding Untestable Climate Predictions – My Comments On A $6 Million Grant To Fund A Center For Robust Decision-Making On Climate And Energy Policy
By ‘Roger Pielke Sr. Pielke Research Group, Mar 2, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/is-…[SEPP Comment: Regional multi-decadal models, based on models that have never been validated are a waste of taxpayer money, but the results from them are used to intimidate the unsuspecting, eventually lessening the public’s respect for scientists.]

Negative water vapor feedback in plant evapo-transpiration found
Posted by Anthony Watts, WUWT, Mar 4, 2011https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/04/negative-water…[SEPP Comment: More evidence that with CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere; plants will adapt and withstand droughts better.]

Defenders of the OrthodoxyU.N. leader asks Hollywood for help in fight against global climate change
‘Together we can have a blockbuster impact on the world,’ U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon tells Hollywood heavyweights at a forum on global climate change.
By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times, Feb 27, 2011 [H/t SPPI]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-holl…

Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?
By Anthony Barnosky, et al, Nature 471, 51-57, Mar 3, 2011http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/full…[SEPP Comment: Another effort to communicate better with the public – predict future catastrophe with a question – it is logically impossible to refute. The article is behind a paywall but the abstract is not.]

Seeking a Common GroundCan a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change?
The Berkeley Earth project say they are about to reveal the definitive truth about global warming
By Ian Sample, Guardian, UK, Feb 27, 2011 [H/t Tom Sheahen]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-th…[SEPP Comment: Another article on the Berkeley Earth group that was discussed by Fred Singer in an article carried in last week’s TWTW.]

Carbon price is the best way forward
By Greg Combet, Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Minister, The Australian, Feb 26, 2011 [H/t Malcolm Ross]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/peo…[SEPP Comment: If human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unprecedented and dangerous warming, then taxing emissions would be the most efficient way of regulating them. But they are not.]

Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?The Michael Lynch Power Hour Interview
By Alex Epstein, Master Resource, Mar 4, 2011http://www.masterresource.org/2011/03/lynch-power-ho…[SEPP Comment: A commentary on the problems of ‘peak oil’. Oil production is not only geology, but also, economics, technology, and politics.]

This Is No Time to Discourage U.S. Oil and Gas Production
The president wants to cut $4.4 billion in ‘tax breaks’ for Big Oil. This would cost consumers far more in higher prices and greater reliance on foreign supplies.
By Robert Bryce, WSJ, Feb 26, 2011http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704900…[SEPP Comment: The article may be behind a paywall.]

Study says green sector costs more jobs than it creates
By Staff Writers, BBC, UK, Feb 28, 2011 [H/t Anne Debeil]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12597097…[The study claimed 3.7 jobs were lost for every one created in the UK renewables sector.]

Pumping Oil with Sunshine
New thermal plant uses a greenhouse to make solar steam cheap
By David Biello, Scientific American, Mar 1, 2011 [H/t Warren Wetmore]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pum…[SEPP Comment: Innovative use of a greenhouse to keep the solar panels clean and protected from wind, etc., in order to pump oil more efficiently.]

Other Scientific IssuesHow much CO2 really contributes to global warming?
Spectroscopic studies and modeling of the influence of H20, C02, CH4 on our climate.
By Hermann Harde, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol 13, EGU2001-4505-1, 2011 [H/t Anthony Watts, WUWT]http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU20…[SEPP Comment: The results of this study contradict the widely accepted views of the effect of a doubling of CO2, with no feedbacks. No doubt the study will receive rigorous scrutiny, including efforts of replication.]

And even before it is formed, the Greens in NZ are already loudly complaining that the board of this NZ EPA will not be composed entirely of True Believers.

From afar, I weep for my country. It has a big job to do, rebuilding the infrastructure smashed by the Christchurch earthquake, yet prioritises this nonsense which by it’s own charter will oppose the projects the country badly needs, now more than ever.

A Cambridge, Mass company, Joule Unlimited, has developed the most efficient bio fuel production method yet dispensing with biomass to produce diesel directly with genetically modified cyanobacteria, water, CO2 and sunlight. They see no barrier to scaling up to commercial production quantities. They believe they can produce diesel fuels considerably below current production costs.

“So you think money is the root of all evil?
“Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is that what you consider evil?”

To the quote of the week. “The purpose of the ‘social cost of carbon’ (SCC) estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions.”

@Keith I wish them good luck with the process. Sadly, one needs sunlight (a scare commodity in Cambridge, MA) and warmth (also a bit awol this winter) to run their process. The next step is, of course, to use the diesel that they make. Ford has a nice little hybrid in their Fiesta hybrid that gets 65 mpg that it sells in Europe. Problem is that with the dieselphobia here in the states they cannot sell it here. Given the tax structure and attitudes, we have excess diesel production which we then sell to Europe in exchange for their gasoline. About time we put an end to that silliness.

Geoff Sherrington says:
March 7, 2011 at 4:07 am
“So you think money is the root of all evil?
Probably a misconcieved ideal from 1 Timothy 6:10 (King James Version) “For the love of money is the root of all evil:”
Clearly the writer (Paul) is referring to an attribute of man (probably greed) and not a physical object or even the concept of money.

@a jones I would prefer that America manufacture something else that they can ship abroad to keep you guys in business. The dieselgasoline trade is just an added overhead cost that we can do without. For starts, we could export that 40% of our corn crop that we turn into ethanol and cut the silliness on ethanol in gasoline.

Joule Unlimited plans to install these units all over the country. They are going to require a few million acres to meet our daily diesel consumption.

I happen to drive a VW Jetta TDI averaging 50.3 mpg annually. I could achieve 60 mpg and do in summer but driving up and down hills, our winter -20 to -30F temperatures and snow and ice reduce my winter fuel economy to 45 mpg. The widespread introduction of VW/Audi’s TDI technology is well-received here.

“Yet, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide, a non-toxic trace gas essential to life, is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.”
——————————————————————
As I understand it, the Supreme Court made no such finding. As a matter of law, it ruled that the EPA (as currently constituted) has the power to make such a determination. There is a difference.

Di-hydrogen oxide is THE major greenhouse gas.
Di-hydrogen oxide can be found in the air, on land, in rivers and, perhaps worst of all, in the oceans, in not inconsiderable quanties.
It is extremenly urgent that the EPA ban di-hydrogen oxide immediately.

And, children, that’s how life on earth eventually ended.
Not with a bang, but with a wimper.
End of story, I’m afraid.
Sad really, but inevitable.

Petrol (gasoline) prices here, in Scotland are at record prices, and rising. At near £1.30/litre ca. US$10/gallon, of which some 70% is government tax. The most expensive across Europe.

Needless to say, for yet another classic example of the ‘Bwitish intelligence in exploitation:

“Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales, constitutional law in the United Kingdom has provided for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components.[5] The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK’s oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction.[7][8]

For further evidence of the utter failure of what might once have been purported as a ‘Demacracy’, here’s a wicki

Recent evidence

Evidence unearthed in late 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act has shown significant UK government concerns over the rising tide of Scottish Nationalism during the early part of the 1970s and the consequences that this may have had upon ownership and control over the UK’s North Sea resources. A report written by the Scottish Office economist Gavin McCrone for ministers in 1974 indicated that with ownership of North Sea oil, an independent Scotland would have “embarrassingly” large tax surpluses.[16][17] The report also stated that the economy of an independent Scotland, with control over the majority of UK North Sea oil revenue, would have one of the “hardest” currencies in Europe and that “for the first time since the Act Of Union was passed, it can now be credibly argued that Scotland’s economic advantage lies in its repeal.”[18][19][20]

What is it with English “embarrassment” that they cannot hack this 21st century?

Well, instead, maybe I should’ve mentioned the 200 mile limit, or asked the question of ‘sovereignty.’ Or the national oil fund Norway sits on, billions reserved? Mayby it just was too politik to mention EUSSR?

BlogFront.org is committed to uphold the quality standards of blogging. We strive to maintain and promote only the most credible blogs in their respective fields.

Spam blogs or “splogs” has been a problem for some time now and people are getting confused about which blog to trust.

We would like to thank you for maintaining such a reputable blog. We know that it takes time, effort and commitment to keep such a blog and as such, we have added your blog as one of the top Climate Change Blogs.